Saturday, July 31, 2010

Another alarmist junk science article, Manhattan Heat Waves Sign of City Scorchers to Come, confuses the urban heat island effect (UHI), "anthropogenic" global warming (AGW), and seasonal weather to spin a tale of more frequent and intense "city scorchers to come." The article begins by correctly noting the urban heat island effect (UHI) is the reason for the increase of 10-15°F in nighttime temperatures in Manhattan compared to outlying areas. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, eternal seeker of the "missing heat," is stated to be surprised at the magnitude of this "huge" effect, and perhaps this explains why he and his colleagues have previously dismissed the findings of Anthony Watts et al at surfacestations.org. Dr. Trenberth also states, "I'd expect that all the air conditioners and such churning away would easily be 20 to 40 times greater than the global greenhouse effect." Since the claimed effect of AGW over the past century is a total of 1°F, that would mean that the urban heat island effect would easily be 20° to 40°F compared to 1°F "due to" AGW. Nonetheless, the piece concludes, "frazzled New Yorkers can expect such heat waves to become more frequent and intense because of climate change warming." Is the hoax again being re-framed from "global warming" to "climate change" to now "climate change warming?"

The dog days of summer, uh, nights are here. New Yorkers living in Manhattan suffered nighttime temperatures 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in New Jersey or Long Island during the first July heat wave, according to an area-wide network of sensors. The difference arose because of Manhattan's urban heat island effect, researchers said. Energy demand, air quality, asphalt surfaces and exhaust fumes all prevent the city from cooling off as fast as the surrounding areas. The same holds for other metro areas. These heat waves could become more frequent in cities, scientists say, mainly as a result of global warming and the increase in high-rises and other buildings.

Abstract:We present a comprehensive evaluation of uncertainties in the Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Global Temperature Change Potential (GTP) of CH4, using a simple climate model calibrated to AOGCMs and coupled climate-carbon cycle models assessed in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). In addition, we estimate uncertainties in these metrics probabilistically by using a method that does not rely on AOGCMs but instead builds on historical constraints and uncertainty estimates of current radiative forcings. While our mean and median GWPs and GTPs estimates are consistent with previous studies, our analysis suggests that uncertainty ranges for GWPs are almost twice as large as estimated in the AR4. Relative uncertainties for GTPs are larger than for GWPs, nearly twice as high for a time horizon of 100 years. Given this uncertainty, our results imply the possibility for substantial future adjustments in best-estimate values of GWPs and in particular GTPs.

Thesettled science a.k.a. climatology is struggling to explain why ice core samples show that both Greenland and Antarctica have had multiple interglacial periods over the past several hundred thousand years during which temperatures exceeded today's "record high" temperatures by a very considerable 3-4°C, despite the global climate "control knob" a.k.a. CO2 remaining at least 30% lower than the present. The latest attempt is a paper just published, Interhemispheric coupling, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and warm Antarctic interglacials:

Abstract. Ice core evidence indicates that even though atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed ~300 ppm at any point during the last 800 000 years, East Antarctica was at least ~3–4 ◦C warmer than preindustrial (CO2 ~280 ppm) in each of the last four interglacials. During the previous three interglacials, this anomalous warming was short lived (~3000 years) and apparently occurred before the completion of Northern Hemisphere deglaciation. Hereafter, we refer to these periods as “Warmer than Present Transients” (WPTs). We present a series of experiments to investigate the impact of deglacial meltwater on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and Antarctic temperature...

The paper attempts to explain this phenomenon on meltwater from Antarctic glaciers causing alterations in ocean oscillations resulting in a seesaw coupling between the Arctic and Antarctic glaciation and deglaciation, perhaps similar to what we are witnessing today as shown in the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice anomaly charts in the right column→→. I find no mention in the paper why CO2 was not a "control knob" in the past but is now, why "record higher" temperatures occurred multiple times over the past 350K years, and why the "positive feedback from decreased albedo" didn't cause the planet to spin out of control each of those times. Of course it could just be interacting Milankovitch, solar, and oceanic cycles explaining all of this and today's climate, but that would be too simple. see Occam's razor.

Temperature graph at top, temperature anomalies at right of y axis, thousands of years before present along x axis

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

What a deal: Ethanol reduces CO2 for only $754 a ton
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL JULY 26, 2010

The best refutation of the theory of the survival of the fittest is probably the corn ethanol lobby, whose annual $6 billion in federal subsidies have managed to outlive both its record of failure and all evidence and argument. So while we doubt another devastating study will result in any natural selection, recent findings from the Congressional Budget Office deserve more attention all the same. CBO reveals that it costs taxpayers $1.78 in ethanol "incentives" to reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by one gallon—or nearly two-thirds of the current average retail gas price. CBO also estimates that cutting carbon emissions by one metric ton via ethanol runs to $754. To put that number in perspective, the budget gnomes estimate that the price for a ton of carbon under the cap-and-tax program that the House passed last summer would be about $26 in 2019.

However, a recent paper finds that back when the entire earth was like the modern tropics today, as Al Gore tells us we are headed again due to our own sins, biodiversity exploded around the entire planet, with crocodiles and palm trees in the high arctic...

Tropical Biodiversity Explained by Steady Temperatures By OurAmazingPlanet Staff 25 July 2010 02:15 pm ET The astounding array of species that call the tropics home is the result of the near-constant year-round temperatures found in these areas, a new study suggests. The study, which surveyed insect diversity at a variety of latitudes and points in Earth's history, answers a question that has bugged biologists for centuries. It also shows that the exceptional biodiversity of the tropics is not a result of higher temperatures or more sunlight, as once assumed. The findings, detailed in the August issue of the journal Paleobiology, also suggest, intriguingly, the world is likely far less diverse today than it was tens of millions of years ago, when the entire Earth had consistent year-round temperatures, much like the modern tropics.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

There has been quite a flurry of activity over the past two days between the small band of "true skeptics" [Gerlich, Tscheuschner, Kramm, Chilingar, Sorotkin, Thieme, Siddons, Schroeder, Hertzberg, Johnson, etc] and the more numerous "lukewarm skeptics" [Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Watts, Pielke, etc.], perhaps triggered by Kirk Myers' newspaper article: Global warming alarmists in full retreat as skeptics attack greenhouse theory,with WUWT publishing Explaining misconceptions on the "greenhouse effect," which apparently accomplished nothing of the sort judging from the over 200 mostly critical replies. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Roy Spencer posted Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still, which also generated several negative comments. I took 10 minutes to prepare my comment below on Dr. Spencer's post, but am sad to report that after more than 8 hours, my former hero has not published my comment, despite publishing no less than 30 additional comments by himself and others timestamped AFTER my comment was sent in:

Since I took the time to carefully prepare this and didn't want the 10 minutes to go to waste, I post the comment below for anyone interested who wants to show me why it was not worthy of publication on Dr. Spencer's site:

Love your site and most of your skeptical approach, but have to agree with several other comments that AGW violates not only the 2nd law, but the 1st law as well. Here’s why:

Violation of the 1st law:Assumes that GHGs can perpetually recycle IR from the earth’s surface and thereby ADD energy or work input to the system. Take a look at this University course diagram showing 239.7 W/m2 solar input, but somehow the GHGs are then capable of radiating 239.7 W/m2 BOTH UP AND DOWN FOR A TOTAL OF 479.4 W/m2!!!http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html

(other similar diagrams (e.g. K-T) show a TRIPLING of energy by the atmosphere!)

Violation of the 2nd Law:Clausius formulation: “Heat DOESN’T flow from cold to hot (WITHOUT WORK INPUT)” AND “total entropy always increases until equilibrium”

AGW assumes the perpetual heat pump created by the violation of the 1st law DOES THE WORK INPUT TO MAKE HEAT FLOW FROM COLD TO HOT.

AGW also incorrectly assumes the total entropy of the system can DECREASE because from the mathematical description of entropy, if heat flows from cold to hot, entropy must locally DECREASE while the total entropy must INCREASE. Therefore, the AGW “hotspot” hasn’t happened, and won’t happen, and heat will not flow from cold to hot because the atmosphere cannot ADD WORK INPUT.http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-agw-hot-spot-wont-happen.html

GHGs only slow the rate of cooling of the earth, but they cannot make the warm earth warmer.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Sensing that their sky-is-falling theory is crumbling under scientific scrutiny, the always-insecure global warming True Believers are losing their cool, lashing out at critics with a mounting campaign of scurrilous personal attacks, impugning the motives, integrity and mental state of anyone who refuses to genuflect before the high priesthood of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The latest target of the Warmists: Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, a mathematician and leading critic of the global warming theory, a.k.a. "climate change." Monckton was recently mocked and browbeaten in a 115-slide presentation by John Abraham, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. His "hit and run" slide-show attack was an attempt to discredit a presentation that Monckton had given in St. Paul, Minnesota, in October 2009. Monckton replied with a powerful rebuttal that, point by point, eviscerated Abraham's embarrassingly dishonest production. Monckton called on Abraham and the university to issue a formal apology, remove the libelous presentation from the Internet, and donate $110,000 to a Haitian charity as compensation for the damage done to his reputation.

Through it's alarmist eyes, NASA's Earth Observatory looks at this global map of temperature anomalies and writes only about global heat waves, and somehow misses the more extant global cooling waves:

The Global "heat wave" phenomenon

But, at least they finally acknowledged (thanks to skeptical protests!) a part of their boo-boo, admitting in the fine print of their updated version of the alarmist piece:

Correction: This post originally stated the early July 2010 heat wave was a "global phenomenon." We have revised to make our meaning more precise: many places around the globe experienced heat waves in early July.

Still waiting on a forthcoming even more precise correction "many more places around the globe experienced cold waves in early July"

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Skeptic Magazine review by James N. Gardner of The Flooded Earth: Our Future in a World Without Ice Caps IS ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING the cataclysmic threat that Al Gore and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proclaim it to be? Or do powerful natural forces like variable solar output, plate tectonics, and volcanic activity dwarf the climate impact of human-generated greenhouse gases?

"Keeping in line with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed that it will need 800 million gallons of biodiesel in the United States domestic market in 2011.

The EISA "expanded" the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2), which has volume requirements for Biomass-based Diesel, undifferentiated Advanced Biofuels and Cellulosic Biofuels. Biodiesel is the only commercially accepted U.S.-made Advanced Biofuel that fits the description of an undifferentiated Advanced Biofuel and Biomass-based diesel, and it can cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 86 percent when made from animal fats, agricultural oils, and waste greases.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Shocking new statistical error uncovered in NASA’s Earth Energy Budget equations: global warming numbers are incorrect not by factor of two, but three times overBy John O'Sullivan at Johnosullivan.livejournal.com {newly updated}Long-time greenhouse gas theory denier, Alan Siddons, has done it again in exposing NASA’s climate change fraud. In an earlier article I reported how the former radio-chemist had uncovered a bogus ‘X-Factor’ in the Earth Energy Budget equations, or ‘Kiehl-Trenberth diagram’ (K-T). The K-T equations are the foundation of environmentalist claims that emissions from burning fossil fuels are raising global temperatures.That article illustrated how, since 1997, NASA got away with double counting the ‘up and down’ heating effect of carbon dioxide by using the K-T calculations to exaggerate the heating effect of carbon dioxide by a factor of two. Fallacy of the Perpetual Motion Heat EngineWhat I sought to explain in my earlier article was that alarmist climatologists were suggesting that from the 168Wm-2 of heat received by our planet’s surface there comes an ‘up and down’ re-radiation so that half is always being ‘back radiated’ again to Earth’s surface. Thus from 168Wm-2 would come a further 84Wm-2; from that in turn comes back radiated a further 42Wm-2, etc., etc. Thus the notion of ‘trapped’ atmospheric heat was born. Yet, as numerous highly qualified independent scientists have pointed out (e.g. Charles Anderson PhD, Professor Claes Johnson, physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralph Tscheuschner , etc., etc.) such a cyclical re-heating effect is against the laws of physics. Such experts dismiss the entire hypothesis as an impossible perpetual motion heat engine better suited to the realms of science fiction.

Simplified Illustration of the K-T Earth Energy Budget

However, not satisfied with leaving the debunkery at that, Siddons perused the numbers again after reading my last tome, 'Kitchen Colander Proves Greenhouse Gas Theory Won't Hold Water,' The eagle-eyed researcher soon spotted a flaw in my calculations; I had under-estimated the full extent of Trenberth’s (and thereafter, NASA’s) factoring errors.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has just released it's analysis of the Kerry Lieberman "American Power Act" a.k.a. Cap & Tax Bill, and projects a stunning $2.7 trillion blow to the struggling US economy under the (likely) scenario of limited international implementation of similar cap & tax proposals. Energy Market and Economic Impacts of the American Power Act of 2010:"The APA increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services. The result is that real GDP generally falls relative to the Reference case. [the "Reference case" is no American Power Act] In the Reference case, GDP rises 92 percent, from $14.3 trillion in 2008 to $27.4 trillion in 2035. Total present value5 GDP losses over the 2013-2035 time period are $452 billion (-0.2 percent) in the Basic case, with a range from $381 billion (-0.1 percent) to $1.1 trillion (-0.4 percent) in five of the six cases. The present value GDP losses over the same time period are larger in the Limited/No International case, reaching $2.7 trillion"

The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.

Miskolczi's analysis of 61 years of data shows that there has been no change in the infrared "heat-trapping" ability of IR-active "greenhouse gases" over the period, in stark contrast to claims of the "greenhouse effect" that "heat-trapping" should increase in direct relation to the concentration of "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. Since the concentration of CO2 has steadily risen over the 61 year period, while the imaginary "heat-trapping" has not, the theory of anthropogenic global warming is empirically falsified.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

In a new highly recommended post today by Dr. Roy Spencer he states, "Adding more [CO2] “should” cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But I’m still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before."

Thursday, July 15, 2010

More like a 160-page evasion of the real issues that confront global-warming science.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL JULY 16, 2010

The latest study purporting to absolve the scientists involved in November's Climategate scandal was published last week. On predictable cue, the news was followed by a letter from our admirers at the United Nations Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Council urging us to "set the record straight" on "these bogus scandals." Having devoted considerable space to Climategate, we're happy to explain why we can't do that.

Monday, July 12, 2010

To help understand why the overwhelming "consensus" of climatologists believe that IR active "greenhouse" gases are warming the planet, it is helpful to visit one of America's top universities, the University of Massachusetts, to check on what the climatology professors are teaching future climatologists. U Mass has kindly provided us with this "greenhouse effect" calculator used in their climatology course to help answer homework questions. The calculator allows you to dial in the essential "greenhouse effect" parameters of solar input, albedo (reflection - primarily from clouds), and the percentage of [unphysical] "back radiation" to calculate the temperature of any planet with a "greenhouse effect" :

Let's use this handy calculator to create our own test of the "greenhouse effect," assuming an Al Gore apocalyptic scenario of the earth's atmosphere [currently 0.0389% CO2] having a greenhouse gas concentration so high that the atmosphere becomes a perfect "back-radiator" of heat from the earth and doesn't let any heat at all escape to space, but still lets the solar energy in. We use the default values for solar input of 1367 Wm-2, albedo of 31%, and set back radiation at 100% (.999) rather than the default 39.7%, and observe that the average temperature of the earth rises to 1428.05°K, or 2111°F. Now 2111°F is pretty hot, in fact aluminum melts at 1220°F, magnesium at 1200°F, and steel at 2600°F. Amazing that the "greenhouse gases" can accomplish this while ideal laboratory conditions cannot. The maximum laboratory temperatures that could be obtained with a laboratory blackbody which absorbs nearly all incoming radiation is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which tells us the maximum temperature with the same inputs would be 359.11°K or 186.72°F. Hmmm, that's less by a factor of 11 than what greenhouse gases can supposedly achieve according to U Mass. The greenhouse hypothesis makes a self-contradictory claim that back-radiation causes a body to EXCEED the blackbody limit, even though a laboratory blackbody EPITOMIZES the effect of back-radiation.

I'm pretty sure that if you tried this at home, with ten 100 Watt light bulbs mounted on a mirror 1 meter square to provide 1000 Wm-2 heat input (analogous to solar input of 1367 Wm-2 minus 31% albedo = 943 Wm-2), hung this contraption a bit above the earth and facing downwards, that the earth's surface temperature would rise less than to 2111°F. Or just stand up and point a 1000W hair blower down at your foot; I did and my foot is fine. I'm also pretty sure that if you did the Siddons mirror example, you would not find that the mirror makes the spot on the wall brighter by a factor of 11 (actual amount is zero).

Why such an absurd result from UMass? It's because greenhouse theory ignores the conservation of energy demanded by the 1st law of thermodynamics by assuming our atmosphere is one giant perpetual heat engine "back radiating" heat energy from colder "greenhouse gases" to the earth, causing it to warm up far beyond the solar input, and rinse, cycle, repeat...global calamity. It also ignores the 2nd law of thermodynamics by assuming a cold body ('greenhouse gases") can warm a hot body (earth).

These errors in basic 19th century physics continue to be promulgated at U Mass and indeed most everywhere else. The "beauty" of the greenhouse theory is that it has two major fudge factors to play with: albedo (which is poorly understood and difficult to measure) and unphysical % "back radiation." By assigning arbitrary values to these two fudge factors one can program a computer model that looks like it agrees with global temperatures and thus bamboozle most scientists and the public, while hiding a perpetual motion machine (heat pump) inside. These science fiction theatrics do not warrant the waste of billion$ to enrich the likes of Al Gore & George Soros to the detriment of the rest of humanity.

For papers reflecting the actual physics of the atmosphere, see the Gerlich & Tscheuschner papers and this non-technical summary. See also the Chilingar et al paper.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

James Hansen of NASA/GISS, the world's leading climate alarmist, maintains his title with the new draft of his paper "Global Surface Temperature Change," concluding "global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade, despite large year to year fluctuations associated with the El Nino-La Nina cycle of tropical ocean temperature. Record high global temperature during the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010."

This conclusion is based entirely upon Hansen's own NASA/GISS ("gisstemp") data of surface measurements without adequate coverage of the poles and much of the oceans (which are extrapolated from temperatures up to thousands of miles away) and which have repeatedly been shown to be inappropriately "adjusted" and biased by urban heat island effects. Furthermore, NASA has admitted in climategate emails that their data is inferior to and partly based upon the other global surface temperature data from the infamous Phil Jones ("Hadcrut" data), who has admitted he's not so good at record keeping.

The other global temperature records are the 2 satellite records ("RSS" and "UAH"), which have much more complete coverage of the earth and generally track each other closely. Now lets compare what each of these data sets have shown since the 1998 El Nino (the only time during the past 12 years all 4 data sets were in close agreement). Hansen's data is shown in red at the top as the only global data set which can "claim" "record high global temperature ...in 2010." All three of the other data sets show cooling since the 1998 El Nino, a phenomenon completely unexpected from the computer models of the "greenhouse" effect.

Hansen's paper admits (top of p. 20) that they "have not yet attempted to integrate" satellite data into their global data set [Hmmm wonder why?]. Which data do you believe - that of ideologue James Hansen, who wants to rid the world of industrial civilization, or that of both satellites, or even Phil Jones?

From Johnosullivan:A climate researcher who disputes greenhouse gas theory has come up with a novel way to sieve out global warming spin: use a metal colander.Alan Siddons, who along with Dr. Martin Hertzberg and Hans Schreuder co-authored the groundbreaking paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?’ has devised a simple and ingenious analogy involving a metal strainer and a light bulb to ally fears about global warming created by theorists of greenhouse gases (GHG).Understanding this explanation makes it far easier to go on and comprehend how the Earth’s atmosphere actually behaves. Siddons shows that, like the colander, the GHG hypothesis doesn’t hold water.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

A report today from EIKE calculates the actual energy payback time for large solar cell installations in Germany to be 8.7 years. The energy payback time of a power generating system is the time required to generate as much energy as was consumed during production of the system. The report thus concludes, "The outlined analysis shows solar power systems are not an energy source, but facilities for energy dissipation."

The report also finds actual energy payback time for large wind energy installations to be 3.5 to 5.5 years.

The actual payback time for much less efficient home-grown solar and wind power was not determined. The analysis suggests that much more CO2 will be produced in the mining of materials and manufacturing of solar and possibly wind systems than one could ever hope to achieve from their use. Also note, the energy payback time of power installations is typically much less than the economic payback time.

Also today: Lawrence Soloman shows why "no company can make a profit supplying wind power to the electricity system without government subsidies, and why no society can count on wind power when the power is most needed."

Research shows that aerosols not only cool, but also heat the planet — a finding that may cloud the validity of climate-change models.

MIT News Office 7/8/10Just how much warmer Earth will become as a result of greenhouse-gas emissions — and how much it has warmed since preindustrial times — is much debated. In a 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an agency formed by the United Nations to assess climate change, said that the planet’s average surface temperature will rise by between 2 and 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, with a best estimate at between 3.2 to 7.2 degrees F. However, the IPCC’s computer models have a record of overestimating warming: If the IPCC models were right, the planet should now be hotter than it is.

Friday, July 9, 2010

Two new peer-reviewed papers just published in Energy and Environment continue to bring the AGW hypothesis crumbling to its knees. The first agrees with the Gerlich and Tscheuschner papers that changes in the trace [currently 0.0389%] CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has not shown any measurable influence upon climate.

A null hypothesis for CO2 Author: Roy Clark, Ph.D

Abstract: Energy transfer at the Earth's surface is examined from first principles. The effects on surface temperature of small changes in the solar constant caused by the sunspot cycle and small increases in downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth's climate. The surface temperature changes produced by an increase in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago. Energy & Environment, Issue Volume 21, Number 4 / August 2010

And the 2nd argues a "paradigm shift" in AGW "research" is necessary to due the obvious lack of correlation between CO2 and global warming [take for instance the steady increase in CO2 and global cooling from the 1940's through 1970's when the "scientists" at Stanford University Paul Erhlich and Steven Schneider alarmed the world of the impending ice age].

In other words, it's always helpful to remember the first rules of science "correlation does not mean causation" and "lack of correlation means lack of causation"

Introductory paper on paradigm shift: Should we change emphasis in greenhouse-effect research?

Abstract: A paradigm is a set of scientific and metaphysical beliefs that provide a theoretical framework within which scientific theories can be tested. Replacement of an existing paradigm by another is called a paradigm shift. Most of the following papers in this issue argue that an alternative paradigm is needed for the functioning of the so-called greenhouse effect of the Earth and hence for the explanation of observed climatic change. Some others contest it. The observed coincidence between global warming and rise of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century - more accurately measured over the last 30 years of it - need not indicate a causal relationship, and it certainly need not give rise to global catastrophe. An assumed correlation is based on the expectation that the infrared radiation from CO2 contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect of the Earth. However, irregularities in the trends raise doubts of such a simple causal relationship and, at least, considerable doubt about the magnitude of such an expected effect.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

German theoretical physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, authors of the 2009 paper "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics," have responded to critics with 2 recent papers which reaffirm their conclusion that "we cannot expect that a change in concentration of any trace gas will have any measurable effect" upon climate (i.e. CO2 and all other trace IR active "greenhouse" gases). The first titled "On the Barometric Formulas and their Derivation from Hydrodynamics and Thermodynamics" derives the barometric formulas of atmospheric pressure, density, and temperature and then discusses the implications which reaffirm the conclusions of their 2009 paper and relevance to the anthropogenic global warming debate. They find conventional "greenhouse theory" has also not appropriately accounted for barometric effects, and find other misconceptions and over-simplifications. From the conclusion:

Abstract: It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our "Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are "trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process" and that we are "systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth's surface and atmosphere". Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a "Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind", (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.

Comment: They note in the abstract that conventional "greenhouse" theory creates a perpetual process in violation of the conservation of energy.
Also note:Arthur P Smith's rebuttal of the G&T has been shown by the Kramm paper to be "fruitless."

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

The Sun heats the Earth and the Earth heats the atmosphere...heat energy CANNOT flow from Cold to Warm objects

If Back Radiation actually reached and heated the Earth as Trenberth shows, then Parabolic Mirror Solar Ovens would produce heating Day and Night

IT IS “NOT POSSIBLE” FOR BACK RADIATION FROM A COLDER ATMOSPHERE TO HEAT UP A WARMER EARTH

Solar cookers prove this.And a simple thermometer proves the same thing in daytime. No matter how hot an object gets in the sun, and no matter how well it is protected from convective and conductive heat losses, its temperature will correspond only to the solar irradiance it is receiving. There is no evidence of any other thermal radiation source.

But who is standing in the way of destroying this silly heating-via-reverse-radiation fantasy once and for all? Influential AGW skeptics like [names deleted-legal]. For they regard the fantasy as real -- and those who dismiss it as delusional.

Terry Oklberg’s post was very well done.——The basic cause and effect of the Sun-Earth-Atmosphere system is:

The Sun heats the Earth and the Earth heats the atmosphere.

The Sun is the only energy source and the Earth and atmosphere are merely passive receivers of the Sun energy.

The AGW "incontrovertible" theory requires a "fingerprint" of a tropical tropospheric "hot spot" to occur due to "back radiation" or "heat trapping" gases or "radiative confinement" [unphysical IPCC-speak]. Despite an army of researchers looking for said "hot spot", it is another "travesty" that it only exists in arbitrary virtual computer models and has stubbornly refused to form in the actual atmosphere. The 2nd law of thermodynamics explains why. The 2nd law requires the total entropy or "disorder" of the universe to increase or remain constant (at equilibrium). From the mathematical definition of entropy, a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has decreasing entropy. This can happen in a non-isolated system if entropy is created elsewhere, such that the total entropy is constant or increasing. The Clausius formulation of the 2nd law states that "heat doesn't flow from cold to hot (i.e. the net vector)" (without work input) because if it did, entropy would have to decrease. Forcing or 'work input' (which the passive atmosphere cannot provide) is required to cause heat to flow from cold to hot, such as in a heat pump, but the electrical work input to the heat pump results in an overall increase in entropy.

Some simple thought experiments are helpful. We all know that a hot cup of coffee in a cooler room cools down until equilibrium is reached, entropy increases, and both are the same temperature. This process satisfies the 1st law of thermodynamics since the amount of energy lost by the coffee is equal to the amount gained by the surrounding air. Now let us consider the reverse process - the hot coffee getting even hotter in a cooler room as a result of heat transfer from the room air. Everyone knows this process never takes place. It is clear that processes proceed in a certain direction and not in the reverse direction. The 1st law states that energy must be conserved and the 2nd law tells you in which direction the process will occur. The insulating coffee mug slows the rate of cooling as does the ambient heat in the cooler room and the insulation in the home, but none of these warm the coffee or decrease entropy. The cooler room does radiate energy to the warmer coffee, but it does not raise the temperature of the coffee since the net vector is always one-way from hot to cold; it just slows the rate of cooling.

Now let's extend the impossible net negative entropy thought experiment to the passive atmosphere. The illustration below from JoNova depicts the model-predicted AGW fingerprint tropical tropospheric "hot spot" which does not exist in the actual weather balloon measurements. The measurements show no vertically or horizontally isolated hot spot in accordance with the increase in entropy demanded by the 2nd law. The measurements show disorder compatible with increasing entropy rather than order required for a "hot spot". I have added the big red arrow and "entropy" to the JoNova diagram to illustrate the following thought experiment.

Arrow illustrates flow of heat in the entropy thought experiment

Assume the AGW "hot spot" existed and is the hot coffee and the remainder of the atmosphere the cooler room. In order to satisfy the 2nd law, total entropy must increase and the "hot spot" cool down both vertically and horizontally (isotropically) until equilibrium. Just like the impossible process of the cooler room causing the hotter coffee to warm up, the cooler atmosphere cannot warm the hotter earth; it just slows the rate of cooling of the earth. In order for the passive atmosphere to add energy or 'work input' or 'forcing' to locally decrease entropy as required for a heat pump to make heat flow from cold to hot, entropy would have to increase elsewhere to satisfy the 2nd law requirement of a total increase in entropy; where might that be? Likewise, the home insulation does not "back radiate" to warm up the coffee; it just slows the rate of cooling of the hotter coffee. If we turn on a heat pump to warm up the home, that will slow the cooling of the coffee even more, while increasing the total entropy of the universe in accordance with the 2nd law. The AGW "hotspot" would require an unphysical, unstable process in violation of the 2nd law requirement of increasing entropy, and that is why it doesn't exist and won't happen.

Bonus thought experiment: If we put the coffee on a hot plate and switch on the electrical work input, that will warm the coffee. Question: which is better at warming the coffee: a) coffee on top of the hot plate or b) coffee under the hot plate analogous to the mid-tropospheric "hot spot" "warming" earth?

Monday, July 5, 2010

The laws of heat transfer apply equally to conduction and radiation. Just as visible light cannot be reflected back to an object to make it brighter, neither can an infrared reflection make it hotter. Greenhouse theory offers a false physics, then, and reradiating CO2 molecules cannot heat a surface whose heat they are reacting to. The same professor of applied mathematics who borrowed my mirror example and came to the same conclusion about the actual behavior of radiant energy, amplified that conclusion just today:

In short: heat flows from hot to cold but there is no physics corresponding to a flow from cold to hot analogous to "backradiation". Heat can radiate from a hot to a cold body, but not from a cold to a hot. In other words:

To understand that atmospheric "backradiation", the scientific basis of global warming, is an unphysical fictional phenomenon, it is useful to compare with heat conduction, or more generally diffusion...

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Attention warmists, the latest version 2.07of the University of Colorado "Greenhouse Effect" java simulator is now available! It provides an animation you can control to find out the exact temperature from adding "lots" of "greenhouse" gases causing unphysical back radiation in violation of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. "Lots" of back radiating greenhouse gases will add enough work input to raise the global temperatures 7°C! Plus don't miss the second tab at the top to show that "greenhouse" gases are just like a pane of glass or even 3 panes! (please ignore RW Wood's classic 1909 paper which ripped to shreds the Arrhenius "glass pane" paper).

Radiochemist Alan Siddons alerted me to this simulator and writes, "not only does it falsely attribute radiative forcing to the IR-opacity of glass, but it also (and by necessity) shows less IR escaping from the earth as the greenhouse effect progresses. In fact, greenhouse theory asserts that the SAME amount of IR escapes as the greenhouse effect progresses. Consequently, more photons would have to appear out of nowhere in order to simultaneously hold photons in and also release them. Somehow the University of Colorado couldn't simulate that miracle". He also provided this IPCC diagram with his added notations to help clarify this phenomenon:

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Press release 7/2/10: "Previous studies have shown that reducing carbon dioxide emissions to zero would not lead to appreciable cooling, because carbon dioxide already within the atmosphere would continue to trap heat. For cooling to occur, greenhouse gas concentrations would need to be reduced. “We wanted to see what the response would be if carbon dioxide were actively removed from the atmosphere,” says study coauthor Ken Caldeira of Carnegie’s Department of Global Ecology. “Our study is the first to look at how much carbon dioxide you would need to remove and for how long to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations low."

The Carnegie simulations of "scrubbing the atmosphere" of deadly CO2 (using technology that doesn't exist) shows that for every 100 billion tons of CO2 removed from the atmosphere, average global temperatures would drop a whopping 0.16° C (0.28° F). And "further simulations showed that in order to keep carbon dioxide at low levels, the [imaginary] process of extracting carbon dioxide from the air would have to continue for many decades, and perhaps centuries, after emissions were halted."

Global CO2 emissions are 32 billion tons/yr

Thus, for the fictitious payback of 0.16°C of global cooling, all CO2 emissions would need to come to a complete halt and unknown technology developed to remove the .0389% CO2 content in the atmosphere at a rate more than double the current global emissions, for "perhaps centuries".

Let's get to work on that right away

{And we'll need to make sure the huge, unknown, global CO2 scrubbing technology can run off of solar power since otherwise it'll probably emit more CO2 than it scrubs.}

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Greenhouse gas theory manages to not only violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, but the 2nd law as well. There are many ways of stating the second law of thermodynamics, such as "In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy". But Rudolf Clausius provided the simplest formulation of the second law:

"Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow [i.e. the net vector] from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature."

or

“Heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot (without work input)”

Note how this diagram from NASA of the second law of thermodynamics (without work input) illustrates the net flow of heat as a one-way vector always from hot to cold:Work input is required to cause any heat to flow from cold to hot, which is obviously true from everyday experience. For example in a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when aided by an external agent (i.e. the compressor). Note that from the mathematical definition of entropy, a process in which heat flows from cold to hot has decreasing entropy. This can happen in a non-isolated system if entropy is created elsewhere, such that the total entropy is constant or increasing, as required by the second law. For example, the electrical energy going into a refrigerator is converted to heat and goes out the back, representing a net increase in entropy.Another way of stating the Clausius formulation of relevance to the AGW debate is

"energy from the hotter body has left that body - it therefore cools down. The smaller amount of energy from the cooler body cannot fully replace that lost energy; it just slows the rate of cooling."

Since "greenhouse" gases cannot add any energy to the system, or "work input", and are colder than the surface of the earth, they cannot cause additional warming of the earth; they just slow the rate of cooling. Furthermore, the "sunshade" or cooling effect of "greenhouse" gases outweighs the heating effect (due to absorption of incoming solar energy) by a factor of 100.

UPDATE: Alan Siddons (who is not the author of the above post) has just forwarded his reply to those questioning violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

Key statement: The notion that colder matter does not radiate towards hotter matter defies common sense and causality.

I always see that weasel word: Toward. No doubt a cooler object does radiate "toward" a warmer object. The question is what happens as a result. Say you have a blackbody plate (think of an electric heater) radiating 1000 W/m² toward another plate which, because of distance, absorbs half of that intensity, i.e., 500 W/m². At equilibrium, the receiving plate thus radiates 250 W/m² toward the 1000 W/m² plate. Question: Does the 1000 W/m² plate thereby rise to 1250 W/m²? If so, then, by raising the radiator’s temperature without adding more energy, you’ve disproved the first law of thermodynamics. Effectively, you’ve made the radiator heat itself. Moreover, now at 1250 W/m², the radiator will heat the other plate still more, absorb another dose of back-radiated energy, and will reach 1562 W/m². And so on, ad infinitum.

Either radiative heat transfer obeys the 2nd Law or it does not. If the 2nd Law does hold, then light can only transfer energy to something that is radiating less. This would mean that the physics of radiative forcing is fictitious.